This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is basic that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgment or final orders.[10] A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.[11] The resolution of the Sandiganbayan sought to be reviewed or set aside is not in any sense judgment or a final order, but an interlocutory order.[12] An order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits.[13] The order of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash filed by petitioners is interlocutory in nature because it leaves something more to be done by the Sandiganbayan, by way of resolving the case on the merits. The denial of petitioners' motion to quash allows the same petitioners to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on their part to present the special defenses they invoked in their motion and if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom via appeal by certiorari.[14] | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention is without merit. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In People v. Belaro,[13] this Court explained that the essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Even a frontal attack can, therefore, be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. As we had recently stated in People v. Floro:[14] | |||||